Ellen S. v. Katlyn F.

Court of Appeals of Connecticut

August 15, 2017

ELLEN S.v.KATLYN F.[*]

Argued
May 25, 2017

Procedural
History

Application
for a civil protective order, brought to the Superior Court
in the judicial district of New London and tried to the
court, Diana, J.; judgment granting the application,
from which the defendant appealed to this court.
Affirmed.

Cody
A. Layton, with whom, on the brief, was Drzislav Coric, for
the appellant (defendant).

Keller, Prescott and Bear, Js.

Syllabus

The
defendant appealed to this court from the judgment of the
trial court granting the plaintiff's application for a
civil protection order. The defendant claimed that the trial
court improperly determined that there were reasonable
grounds tobelieve that the defendant had stalked the
plaintiff and would continue to do so in the absence of an
order of protection. Held that the defendant's
claim that the trial court improperly granted the
plaintiff's application for a civil protection order was
unavailing; because the defendant failed to obtain a
memorandum of decision from the trial court and to include it
in the appendix to her brief, and the transcript of the trial
court proceedings that the defendant filed with the appellate
clerk did not reveal a sufficiently detailed and concise
statement of the court's findings, this court could not
conclude, on the basis of the limited record before it, that
the trial court committed any legal or factual error in
reaching the decision that it did, as the scant record did
not reflect the errors claimed by the defendant, and the
trial court's ruling therefore was entitled to the
reasonable presumption that it was correct.

OPINION

PER
CURIAM.

The
defendant, Katlyn F., appeals from the judgment of the trial
court granting the application for a civil protection order
filed by the plaintiff, Ellen S.[1] The defendant claims that
the court improperly determined ‘‘that there were
reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant had stalked
the plaintiff and would continue to do so in the absence of
an order of protection.'' We affirm the judgment of
the trial court.

The
record reveals the following facts. On January 6, 2016, the
plaintiff filed an application for an order of civil
protection against the defendant. In her application, she
alleged in relevant part that she had been the victim of
stalking. In her application, she described two occasions in
which she was subjected to what she characterized as
‘‘immature behavior'' by the defendant.
On one occasion, the defendant yelled at her and almost
overturned a table in her direction. On the other occasion,
the defendant shoved her using both hands. She alleged that
other encounters had occurred, but did not provide details
about them. The plaintiff requested that the court order that
the defendant (1) not assault, threaten, abuse, harass,
follow, interfere with or stalk her; (2) stay away from her
home; (3) not contact her in any manner; and (4) stay 100
yards away from her. The court granted the application and
issued an ex parte civil protection order.

The
court held a hearing on the application on January 19, 2016.
This was a joint hearing during which the court also
considered an application for a civil restraining order
against the defendant that was brought by the plaintiff's
boyfriend, the court's denial of which is not a subject
of this appeal. It was not disputed that the plaintiff's
boyfriend is the defendant's former boyfriend. At the
hearing, the plaintiff testified with respect to four
separate and distinct incidents, which occurred during an
approximately three year period of time, involving herself
and the defendant: the first incident occurred at a
restaurant referred to as the Harp and Dragon in December,
2015; the second incident occurred at a restaurant referred
to as Hot Rod's in December, 2014; the third incident
occurred at an establishment referred to as the Oasis Pub;
and the fourth incident occurred at a friend's house in
the summer of 2014. At the hearing, the court heard testimony
from the plaintiff, the plaintiff's boyfriend, the
defendant, and a mutual friend of the parties. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the court granted the
plaintiff's application. The court ordered that the
defendant ‘‘not assault, threaten, abuse, harass,
follow, interfere with or stalk the [plaintiff] with regard
to that matter. That order is [going to] be in effect for six
months from this date . . . .''[2] This appeal
followed.

The
defendant argues that, in granting the plaintiff relief under
General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 46b-16a,
[3]the
court erroneously found that there were reasonable grounds to
believe that she committed acts to warrant issuance of the
civil protective order and that she will continue to commit
such acts or acts designed to intimidate or retaliate against
the applicant. The defendant argues that the court
‘‘erred in its interpretation of and application
of the law to the facts.'' In so doing, the defendant
first argues that it is reasonable to infer that the court
based its decision on a finding that she committed acts
constituting stalking in the second degree as described in
General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 53a-181d,
[4]
and, she argues, the evidence presented at the hearing did
not support such a finding. Second, the defendant argues that
‘‘[n]o evidence was presented by either party
that would indicate that [she] would continue to commit the
acts she has been accused of.'' The defendant asks
this court to reverse the court's judgment and to remand
the case to the trial court with direction to deny the
plaintiff's application.

Initially,
we observe that the defendant's appendix does not contain
a copy of the trial court's decision. ‘‘It is
the responsibility of the appellant to provide an adequate
record for review. The appellant shall determine whether the
entire record is complete, correct and otherwise perfected
for presentation on appeal.'' Practice Book §
61-10 (a); see also Practice Book § 60-5
(‘‘[i]t is the responsibility of the appellant to
provide an adequate record for review as provided in [§]
61-10''). The appellant bears the responsibility for
providing this court with an appendix that, in part one,
‘‘shall contain . . . opinions or decisions of
the trial court . . . .'' Practice Book § 67-8
(b) (1). For reasons that should be obvious, this
noncompliance with the rules of appellate procedure is an
impediment to this court's review of the defendant's
brief as well as the trial court's decision.

Next,
we observe that a copy of the trial court's decision does
not appear in the court file. The court's rendering of
judgment in favor of the plaintiff in this matter constitutes
a final judgment. Pursuant to Practice Book § 64-1 (a),
the trial court was required ‘‘[to] state its
decision either orally or in writing . . . . The court's
decision shall encompass its conclusion as to each claim of
law raised by the parties and the factual basis therefor. If
oral, the decision shall be recorded by a court reporter,
and, if there is an appeal, the trial court shall create a
memorandum of decision for use in the appeal by ordering a
transcript of the portion of the proceedings in which it
stated its oral decision. The transcript of the decision
shall be signed by the trial judge and filed with the clerk
of the trial court. . . .'' Pursuant to Practice Book
§ 64-1 (b), ‘‘[i]f the trial judge fails to
file a memorandum of decision or sign a transcript of the
oral decision in any case covered by subsection (a), the
appellant may file with the appellate clerk a notice that the
decision has not been filed in compliance with subsection
(a). The notice shall specify the trial judge involved and
the date of the ruling for which no memorandum of decision
was filed. The appellate clerk shall promptly notify the
trial judge of the filing of the appeal and the notice. The
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.